It’s not entirely accurate to spread the risk of those 437 reactors over 60 years though, because not all of them have been around for that long. So if we halve the time for simplicity and assume they’ve all been around for 30 years (some of them will have been around for longer and some for less), our risk doubles to 1.4%

Therefore:

Eruption: ~ 6% over 60 years

Meltdown: ~ 1.4% over 60 years

It’s also a certainty for Auckland that one day, a new vent will appear somewhere and an eruption will occur. For Europe’s nuclear power plants, there is the option, “it may never happen” .

Related

6Comments

There is also the option of an unprecedented military/rouge/terrorist attack on those reactors which would raise the odds.
By the way, how cute is that curl in the front of Elizabeth’s hair in your profile pic?!?!?!?!

True about the threat, except that I reckon I’ve over-estimated the risk, to Western Europe. There are fewer reactors there than in places like the US. They are also likely to have higher safety standards than places like Chernobyl.

That IS a cute curl!! Hadn’t noticed it before. A perfect circle. 🙂 I really think you guys should join me in Canberra. No earthquakes. No reactors. Lots of trees and wildlife. A good uni. Bloody freezing winters and MOI on tap. Perfect!

The reason I decided to check out the stats is because we have an acquaintance who recently moved to Auckland from Western Europe. He says he felt more worried about the nuclear reactors there than he does about the Auckland volcanic field. The statistics just don’t support this though.